Greek Life is almost ubiquitous with college life, and is often held up as an institution that instills senses of community, character, friendship, leadership and charity among its members.

But this is a romanticized version of Greek Life that hides what it truly is: an antiquated relic that perpetuates privilege for those admitted into the Boys Club of fraternities — mostly upper-class, white, straight, Christian men — and makes its values and beliefs the norm for college social life and beyond.

In the process of rushing, implicit biases regarding race, religion, sexuality, and other forms of identity have always influenced whether or not a prospective member “fits in” with the Boys Club. Rather than fostering community and friendship, the need to conform to participate in Greek Life creates an exclusionary clique of people who are exactly the same and think exactly the same.

And this sameness can be dangerous.

According to a recent 2018 study, men within fraternities feel pressured to uphold and endorse masculine norms, which results in men readily viewing women as sexual objects and emasculating men who do not live up to these expectations. Another study found that fraternity men also tend to harbor anti-LGBTQ sentiments as the community does not conform to traditional masculine expectations.

But these ideas do not just stay in the frat houses. Fraternities wield an outsized influence in college social life as they are not held to the same restrictions as sororities regarding possessing alcohol and hosting parties, which are arguably integral to the college experience. As a result, fraternity members are able to police their parties by determining who can or cannot enter, forcing women and other people vying for entrance to adhere to the traditional gender norms of Greek Life to participate in these social spaces. This further imposes the homogeneous values of fraternities onto the rest of the student body.

The recent report regarding a derogatory document attributed to Phi Kappa Psi — which included anti-gay slurs, objectification of women, rape jokes, anti-Semitic references and ableist language — exemplifies how the culture of these boys clubs promotes an environment that segregates people into tribes with a homogeneous set of values that perpetuates what is or is not acceptable within groups of men.

Perhaps Phi Kappa Psi’s actions can be dismissed as “locker room talk,” but Greek Life has always used its commitment to community, friendship and charity as a way to deflect from criticism. But when people are caught in an act when they thought no one was looking, it is always indicative of their true character. and the same can be said for Greek Life.

In a way, Phi Kappa Psi’s documents is emblematic of who Greek Life perceives as worthy of entrance into its parties and of its respect. And this certainly doesn’t include  “faggots” or “Twitter sluts.”

But this problematic culture is not just isolated to higher education and its parties. These mostly white boys clubs extend to the business world, Wall Street and the White House through a “fraternity pipeline” where they receive special treatment in already male-dominated fields and keep the toxic culture alive outside of college. As a result, this the segregation of who does and does not get accepted into a fraternity further exacerbates the opportunity gap that minority and marginalized communities have compared to white students to succeed in the professional world.

In a university environment where we strive for the discourse of diverse ideas and a celebration of individuality, Greek Life stands opposed to this premise. Instead, Greek Life provides a safe haven for students to retreat into where everyone looks and think alike to avoid different perspectives and reinforce pre existing ones. And this is how documents such as the one attributed to Phi Kappa Psi emerge.

This is why the University of Oregon should move to promote inclusivity and integration within Greek Life to change the culture both on and off campus.

One way to accomplish this is to encourage fraternities and sororities to become coed.This would not be the first time single-gender groups integrated. Princeton’s all-male eating clubs went coed in the 1990s, and Harvard’s final clubs went coed in 2016.

Greek Life should also provide financial aid for members to include members who are not just among the richest 25 percent of the population. Many low-income students are unlikely to pay the dues necessary to participate in Greek Life, which produces a socioeconomic and racial disparity that further contributes privilege to members that have historically been white. Financial aid allows lower-income students to participate in an institution that has historically excluded them.

Despite the critiques of Greek Life, there are benefits. Many who defend it discuss how it creates a sense of belonging in a period of a person’s life where they are likely away from home for the first time and unsure what to do next. People can forge life-long friendships and spouses, and it can also proved career opportunities through networking.

But why should these opportunities be based solely around gender and reserved for those who have historically participated in it?

By breaking apart the homogeneity of Greek Life, we can transform this culture that has defined higher education and beyond.  Having more women and others who are not just upper-class, straight, white men in these groups can bring in new experiences and perspectives that can change the composition and behavior of Greek Life

Without these reforms, Greek Life will continue its pattern of segregation and elitism and only serve as a bastion of classism, sexism and racism.

Phi Kappa Psi’s actions should be seen as a product of the long-lasting legacy of these white boys clubs that has created a normalized a culture that made its comments acceptable.

Changing an institution so ingrained in the culture of higher education will not be easy, especially since Greek Life alumni are some of the largest donors for their alma mater, but this change is more than just helping fraternities and sororities become more diverse and inclusive. It is about holding them accountable for the common values and missions they continually say they strive for. If fraternities and sororities are serious about the values they say they uphold, the values of community, character, friendship, leadership and charity they should be the ones leading this reform.

The post Trinidad: Breaking up the boys club appeared first on Emerald Media.

Last month, I attended a University of Oregon seminar centered around activism in sports, which was part of President Michael Schill’s Freedom of Expression initiative to explore the limits of freedom of expression on college campuses.

The event claims that “sport has activism in its very DNA” because sport provides a stage for social progress that everyone can see. From instances such as racial integration, the right to opt-out of military service and Title IX protections for female athletes, sport has been a catalyst for change; however, activism within sport remains controversial and ignites debates on whether political discussions should have a place in it.

Although this seminar celebrated activism in sport, it also highlighted one glaring contradiction at UO: the silencing of our own student athletes.

It is unquestionable that student athletes trade some of their rights to freedom of expression for the ability to compete and represent their university on an athletic team. This opportunity is often accompanied with a scholarship, but this scholarship is not guaranteed for all four years. Instead, it is renewed every year at the coach’s discretion. This creates an environment where students are fearful of stepping out of line and losing access to scholarships that make higher education accessible. But despite these limits, there have been times when athletes have spoken out.

In 2014, Oregon basketball players Dwayne Benjamin and Jordan Bell held their hands up during the National Anthem before a game and appeared to frisk each other as the starting lineup was announced. Their actions took place as racial tensions began to flare following the killings of two Black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, by police officers who were not indicted for their actions.

Rather than being able to freely express their personal beliefs and explain their actions, Benjamin and Bell were not made available to comment, according to an article by The Oregonian. Head Coach Dana Altman criticized their actions while the players were unable to defend themselves.

“I think every player has a right to express their opinion; however, I didn’t think that was the time and place for it,” Altman said. “As part of our basketball team, when you put the Oregon jersey on, it’s a little different.”

But why should an Oregon jersey subject you to different rights?

Time and time again, university athletics utilizes its sports information directors (SIDs) — the gatekeepers who determine media access to athletes at their own discretion — to invoke unwritten rules that limit athletes’ abilities to freely speak to the press. Although the athletic department argues that these rules protect athletes from unwanted press coverage, this policy has routinely been abused.

This has happened in track and field when head coach Robert Johnson routinely denied athletes access to interviews. And this happened last year with the athletic department’s threat to revoke the Emerald’s press credentials after a reporter directly contacted an athlete about accusations of violence against former Oregon tight end Pharaoh Brown without the athletic department’s permission.

Although President Schill heralded higher education as dedicated to “rational discourse, shared governance and the protection of dissent” in his op-ed in The New York Times, he has ignored the stifling of discourse within his own ranks in the athletics department, and even endorsed the athletic department’s SID practices.

Although sports has activism in its DNA, the university’s policies create a glaring omission of student athletes from this activism.

Student athletes are first and foremost students. Despite all the glitz and glamour of sports, they experience all of the problems that come with being a student, such as rising tuition, food and financial insecurity, sexual harassment, hate incidents and safety. And their voices on these issues should be heard.

Student athletes are the most prominent students on campus because of their presence. Their faces are constantly plastered on TV screens, posters and news publications. With only four percent of students participating in the recent ASUO election, it is more likely that students know what the basketball team is doing than the ASUO Senate. Student athletes should be able to leverage their prominence to set the standard of what is acceptable at our university.

This was seen with the University of Missouri’s football players who refused to play unless the university president resigned over the school’s handling of racial tensions. Despite calls to have their scholarships revoked, the athletes held their ground and successfully changed their university to reflect the values of its students.

Allowing student athletes to stand up for what they believe in will lend our university credibility to its basic ideals of protecting discourse and dissent that Schill says it does. Threats of taking away scholarships or being removed from a team for voicing their beliefs amounts to a gag rule that restricts the marketplace of ideas that define higher education.

The right of student speech was famously laid out in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that stated students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” And they certainly should not have to shed their constitutional rights when they step on the court.

Athletes must understand that they cannot expect reform from an institution and anticipate tolerance from that same institution. This institution has a vested financial interest in preserving the status quo, and the last thing it would want is an honest conversation about the restriction of student speech. It is unlikely that the university will allow such discourse among its athletes.

But athletes should be willing to make a stand.

Freedom of expression is not free. It requires action, but action comes with consequences that athletes must be willing to accept. In order to make UO the bastion of freedom of expression that Schill says it is, we must allow student athletes to speak without fear and participate in the historic activism that has long been connected to sport.

The post Trinidad: Let student athletes speak appeared first on Emerald Media.

Dear journalism students,

Whether you are approaching graduation or you still have time left in Allen Hall, we have all dedicated our academic journey to a single, common goal: a commitment to truth.

And this commitment to truth is something we need now more than ever.

In a world that often seems so big and where we seem so small, truth is the great equalizer. Armed with truth, citizens have the information they need to make important decisions regarding what is best for their communities, their government and their lives.

And journalism empowers the powerless with truth to protect them from the powerful.

Whether you are a writer, anchor or editor, you are part of the invisible fourth branch of government that requires a sense of civic duty and devotion to truth to protect our communities from abuses of power.

This is why I was so drawn to the profession in the first place and committed almost six years of school to develop my skills in it. I wanted to be the next Walter Cronkite or the next Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, not because they are the rock stars of the profession, but because their work held the feet of the powerful to the fire.

Despite my unwavering devotion to truth, this role also comes with constraints that ultimately pushed me away from it.

Amid a divisive 2016 election, I was constrained by the objectivity that journalism requires to maintain my credibility as an unbiased journalist. As a result, I found myself unable to speak a different kind of truth: my personal truth. Instead of speaking truth to power, I felt as if I was preaching truth to the choir.

After the election, I viewed my objectivity as complicity, as I was obligated to treat both sides as equals. I couldn’t bear the thought that my complicity somehow helped elect a White House and Congress so averse to truth.

I decided objectivity was a burden I could not personally bear, so I abandoned my dream to become a journalist so I could freely speak my truth to power.

But that doesn’t mean you should abandon yours.

We are now in an age where lies and deceit can easily be mistaken for fact and truth.

People are eager to denounce unfavorable truths as fake news, a single broadcast company preaches propaganda as truth on local TV stations across the nation and the slow demise of local journalism is removing citizens’ access to the very truth they rely on.

Although I have decided to leave journalism, I would not be able to speak my truth without the journalists who devote their lives to it.

It is completely normal to feel doubt about whether journalism is the right profession for you. I spent six years on the fast track to becoming a journalist only to make a U-turn with only one year left before I graduate. But it is important to know why you want to become a journalist.

The purpose of journalism, at its most basic level, is to keep us informed. From the events, issues and people who influence our lives, journalism can sometimes be reduced to what people find interesting or relevant, but it is much more than that.

Journalists have a responsibility to the public to give power to the powerless and a voice to the voiceless by spreading truth.

And if you are in journalism seeking fame, fortune or glory and are willing to compromise your commitment to the truth to accomplish that, you should leave journalism behind because you are pursuing it for the wrong reasons.

I may have given up my dream of being a journalist, but that doesn’t mean that you should. Without journalists who have a commitment to truth, we wouldn’t be able to decipher what’s fact and what’s fiction, and we’d be susceptible to those seeking to exploit that.

The world doesn’t just need more journalists; it needs more journalists who are committed to truth. At this exact moment in history, we need you to provide that truth.

The post Trinidad: An open letter to journalism students appeared first on Emerald Media.

Dear journalism students,

Whether you are approaching graduation or you still have time left in Allen Hall, we have all dedicated our academic journey to a single, common goal: a commitment to truth.

And this commitment to truth is something we need now more than ever.

In a world that often seems so big and where we seem so small, truth is the great equalizer. Armed with truth, citizens have the information they need to make important decisions regarding what is best for their communities, their government and their lives.

And journalism empowers the powerless with truth to protect them from the powerful.

Whether you are a writer, anchor or editor, you are part of the invisible fourth branch of government that requires a sense of civic duty and devotion to truth to protect our communities from abuses of power.

This is why I was so drawn to the profession in the first place and committed almost six years of school to develop my skills in it. I wanted to be the next Walter Cronkite or the next Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, not because they are the rock stars of the profession, but because their work held the feet of the powerful to the fire.

Despite my unwavering devotion to truth, this role also comes with constraints that ultimately pushed me away from it.

Amid a divisive 2016 election, I was constrained by the objectivity that journalism requires to maintain my credibility as an unbiased journalist. As a result, I found myself unable to speak a different kind of truth: my personal truth. Instead of speaking truth to power, I felt as if I was preaching truth to the choir.

After the election, I viewed my objectivity as complicity, as I was obligated to treat both sides as equals. I couldn’t bear the thought that my complicity somehow helped elect a White House and Congress so averse to truth.

I decided objectivity was a burden I could not personally bear, so I abandoned my dream to become a journalist so I could freely speak my truth to power.

But that doesn’t mean you should abandon yours.

We are now in an age where lies and deceit can easily be mistaken for fact and truth.

People are eager to denounce unfavorable truths as fake news, a single broadcast company preaches propaganda as truth on local TV stations across the nation and the slow demise of local journalism is removing citizens’ access to the very truth they rely on.

Although I have decided to leave journalism, I would not be able to speak my truth without the journalists who devote their lives to it.

It is completely normal to feel doubt about whether journalism is the right profession for you. I spent six years on the fast track to becoming a journalist only to make a U-turn with only one year left before I graduate. But it is important to know why you want to become a journalist.

The purpose of journalism, at its most basic level, is to keep us informed. From the events, issues and people who influence our lives, journalism can sometimes be reduced to what people find interesting or relevant, but it is much more than that.

Journalists have a responsibility to the public to give power to the powerless and a voice to the voiceless by spreading truth.

And if you are in journalism seeking fame, fortune or glory and are willing to compromise your commitment to the truth to accomplish that, you should leave journalism behind because you are pursuing it for the wrong reasons.

I may have given up my dream of being a journalist, but that doesn’t mean that you should. Without journalists who have a commitment to truth, we wouldn’t be able to decipher what’s fact and what’s fiction, and we’d be susceptible to those seeking to exploit that.

The world doesn’t just need more journalists; it needs more journalists who are committed to truth. At this exact moment in history, we need you to provide that truth.

The post Trinidad: An open letter to journalism students appeared first on Emerald Media.

Alcohol flowing, music blaring, lights flashing and bodies grinding; it’s the typical night out at the local bars. Just like everyone else, I only have one mission: leaving my worries about classes behind, even if it’s just for a night. On a dimly lit dance floor packed wall-to-wall with sweaty bodies, I feel as if my partner and I are lost in the crowd as we dance together, but a new worry begins to creep into my mind.

As a man dancing with another man, I can’t escape the discomfort of being gawked at and singled out. I wish I didn’t have to feel this way, but I almost have no choice.

Despite Eugene being ranked as one of the most LGBTQ-friendly cities in the United States, and the University of Oregon being the most LGBTQ-friendly university in Oregon, the city still lacks spaces where queer people can be queer without hesitation.

Queer spaces are important because they provide an opportunity for all people in the LGBTQ community to gather and socialize without fear of blatant hate or subtle microaggressions. These spaces are where we can be ourselves, whether we are with our partners or by ourselves, looking for friends, for community or seeking our next love or our next hook up.

Eugene previously had this space with the Wayward Lamb, which was the city’s only explicitly queer bar when it opened in 2015. This provided the LGBTQ community with one of the only queer spaces in Eugene where it can be out, loud, proud and unapologetic. However, it closed in February after three years of business, citing finance problems and family concerns, leaving a hole in the community that has yet to be filled.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to experience the Wayward Lamb because I turned 21 a few weeks before it closed and was unaware of its impending closure. However, I was able to experience a thriving queer nightlife during a summer in D.C. where I lived only a few blocks away from it. Although it was only a brief encounter, I came away with a feeling that I still haven’t quite found in Eugene:

That I might actually be normal.

Although the closing of the Wayward Lamb impacts the Eugene community, it is also emblematic of the vanishing queer spaces around the country. Queer spaces have closed due to a variety of reasons — gentrification leading to increasing costs, dating apps removing barriers to connect with others and businesses facing pressures to cater to a straighter audience — leaving fewer and fewer places where queer people can be openly queer.

Having a queer-friendly space is not necessary for LGBTQ individuals to freely express themselves, but being out and proud outside of these spaces does not always come naturally.

It is easy to forget that these queer spaces were created out of necessity rather than celebration. Especially before the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage the law of the land, queer people were marginalized and discriminated against in their communities and lacked places where they could freely express themselves and connect with others in the queer community.

Despite progressive strides in LGBTQ equality and inclusivity across the country, queer people still need and appreciate these spaces. In dominantly non-queer spaces, it can be alienating and frightening to express one’s queerness around people who may not be as tolerant as one might expect, even in a liberal city such as Eugene. Many LGBTQ people are still reluctant to express themselves for fear of social repercussions from friends and family, or worse in more conservative states. Queer spaces provide a safe space to be free of these concerns.

Although I am a strong supporter of queer spaces, they aren’t perfect. Trans and gender-nonconforming people aren’t always welcome, and queer nightlife is infamous for celebrating only a specific kind of LGBTQ individual: cisgender, white men.

Despite these problems, the spaces serve as safe havens of queerness in a world where the LGBTQ community is constantly pressured to conform to a crushing heteronormative culture and adhere to masculine and feminine norms. But queer spaces allow us to reject this status quo. We can kiss without shame, genderbend without objectification and socialize without fear.

This need for queer spaces doesn’t come from a feeling of resentment toward straight or cisgender people. Instead, it comes from a feeling of wanting to freely embrace who we are.

While the LGBTQ community lacks queer spaces throughout Eugene, it doesn’t need to be this way.

Business owners can take the initiative to host regular queer-friendly events or become entirely LGBTQ friendly. And LGBTQ individuals can co-opt already existing spaces and reclaim it as their own queer spaces.

It is time for the community to help make Eugene queer again, and perhaps help others see that the queer community is not so queer after at all.

The post Trinidad: Make Eugene queer again appeared first on Emerald Media.

Fifty years ago on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Since then, he has become canonized in American culture and portrayed as a universally loved Christian preacher — a passive, nonviolent martyr with a dream of racial unity whose life was cut short by a hate-filled, faceless man.

But to simplify Dr. King into a friendly-for-all-ages figure where his years of struggle for human dignity are reduced to a singular moment on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is to do him a disservice, and it would be unlikely that he would be heralded by politicians with bipartisan support.

Dr. King was a radical.

Dr. King was more than just a leader for civil rights. He was an outspoken critic of America’s hypocrisy — he decried the institutional racism of government, American militarism and imperialism and the economic injustices of capitalism.

Although he is largely remembered for filling hearts with hope with his “I Have a Dream” speech, his heartfelt Letter from Birmingham Jail illustrates how the American Dream was instead the American Nightmare for Black Americans, who suffered vicious lynchings, police brutality, perpetual poverty and segregation.

In his 1963 book Why We Can’t Wait, Dr. King recognizes the economic subjugation and physical separation of black Americans and poor whites – the “veterans of the long siege of denial” under slavery and Jim Crow– and calls for financial reparations to help correct the decades of injustice.

King would later expand on this issue of class in American politics in his 1967 book Where We Go From Here. He writes, “I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but…the poverty that affects white and Negro alike.” King recognized that Black Americans experience targeted discrimination, but also saw racism as a mechanism used to divide Black and white Americans in pursuing their shared interest of economic betterment.

In addition for his calls for economic justice, Dr. King also advocated for the end of violence against the Black community. He then extended his scope to protect people around the world from one of the greatest sources of violence – the United States. As the Vietnam War intensified and countless American and Vietnamese lives were lost, Dr. King gave a speech in a New York church where he called for the end of the war and recognized that American violence against Black Americans at home was no different than American violence abroad.

“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government,” Dr. King said.

But his scathing critique of American social order was unpopular throughout the country, and only 32 percent of Americans held a favorable view of Dr. King two years before his death. After his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King was called “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security” in a memo by an FBI Domestic Intelligence officer. Dr. King was then quickly approved for surveillance.  

This stands in stark contrast to today where 94 percent of Americans view him favorably. Now, Dr. King’s name adorns countless streets and schools, is endlessly invoked by politicians to demonstrate their upstanding morality, and he has a national holiday.

Although Americans have essentially elevated Dr. King to sainthood, they have deferred his dream and his radicalism, and America’s sores of inaction have festered as a result. Americans are plagued with gun violence, the Black community continues to reel from disproportionate police brutality and the working class continues to struggle with stagnant wages.

If Dr. King were alive today, he would have called for nonviolence as well as direct action, integration as well as Black empowerment, and equality as well as democratic socialism. He would have condemned gun violence, marched with Black Lives Matter and stood with union workers for a higher minimum wage.

Simplifying Dr. King’s message into peace and unity by excluding his denouncement of the oppressive and exploitative American culture that transcends race and class is self-serving and misconstrues his message. The convenient whitewashing of these ideas removes the idea of challenging power and promotes a bastardized version of activism through passiveness and submissiveness. This amounts to a second assassination of Dr. King and what he stood for 50 years later.

Instead, we must embrace Dr. King for who he truly was to let his dream explode into action. As long as millions of Americans suffer in poverty, indignity, violence or punishment because of the color of their skin, their class or our inaction, we have deferred Dr. King’s dream. We must have love, compassion and a quest for justice for those who still suffer in this country and around the world, whether they are white or whether they are Black – that is the dream.

Until then, his dream will continue to dry up like a raisin in the sun.

The post Trinidad: A dream deferred: The assassination of MLK’s Legacy appeared first on Emerald Media.

I’m skeptical of white liberals, and it goes back to the moment I knew Donald Trump would win the presidency.

It was election night, and the polls just started to close on the East Coast. “Madame President” was on the tips of our tongues, and we had bottles of champagne ready to be opened to celebrate the certain victory. But then I started to doubt the historic moment would happen after a friend made a casual joke.

My friends were discussing how they believed a reporter made a journalistic mistake in a cover story for the Daily Emerald. And the reporter happened to be Asian.

“You can’t trust Asians, am I right?” a white friend said, laughing, without missing a beat.

As an Asian journalist, and the only non-white person in the room, I was stunned. However, it was not by her remark, but rather by my white, liberal “friends” and their silence, that shocked me.

There was visible discomfort in those white faces, but I could also see in those same white faces that they were unwilling to challenge one of their own. The person who made the remark left the room shortly after, and she remained unchallenged until I posed a simple question to the room: What the fuck was that?

Although it may be difficult for white liberals to challenge their own, it’s even harder as a person of color to challenge white people. I’ve been met with accusations of being hysterical, aggressive, divisive or even racist when I challenge them, but it’s only when a white person joins me that my feelings are validated for other white people. But nobody joined me this time.

Their silence was a backstabbing betrayal I could never truly forgive, and one friend didn’t even know why I was so upset.

My friends may have voted Clinton that night — and would have voted Obama for a third term if they could — but their silence voted Trump. At that moment, I knew “Madame President” was no longer a certainty. And I was right. But I also learned counting on friends to stand up with me was no longer a certainty.

White liberals may believe their politics are inclusive as long as they see people of color and LGBTQA3 people as part of their movement. But it’s important that white liberals recognize intersectional liberals — people who aren’t white and have different experiences, aspirations and political beliefs that are modified by how their identity affects how they live.

This silence and lack of understanding of intersectionality isn’t new. It has long been white liberals’ tacit sign of approval of America’s racist legacy.

White liberals have a long history of turning a blind eye to the injustices that have plagued marginalized communities and continue to plague them: the whitewashing of the long-term effects of slavery, the racial gerrymandering that dilutes the power of minority voters, the voter disenfranchisement of felons that are disproportionately minorities, the racist origin of Oregon’s non-unanimous jury decisions. White progressives often fail to understand how deeply racism is ingrained in our country and view it as a relic of the past. But it’s not.

This lack of understanding is one of the driving criticisms of the Women’s March. Although the women wearing the pink pussy hats may have had good intentions, the event largely ignored the intersectionality of women — trans women, women of color and low-income women — and how it leads to different forms of oppression compared to the white middle class that seems analogous with the word “woman.”

Instead, it is often people of color, particularly women of color, who have been the true liberal heroes for all Americans.

Marsha P. Johnson, a Black trans woman, led the Stonewall riots and ignited a revolution of queer liberation. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi formed the Black Lives Matter movement, an organization that fights against the oppressive forces of intersectionality that is imposed on all Black Americans, in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Grace Lee Boggs, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, worked closely with Malcolm X in the fight for civil rights and fought for labor rights in her home of Detroit. Dolores Huerta led the labor rights movement for farmers, co-founded what is now the United Farm Workers and continues to fight for workers, women and immigrants.

These activists likely didn’t act to promote progressivism. They did it to protect themselves because they couldn’t count on white progressives to stand with them.

White progressives can vote the right way and believe the right thing — that love is love, Black lives matter and Dreamers are American, too — but they should also do the right thing: listen to us, believe us and stand with us.

Racism isn’t just refusing service to someone based on their appearance. Racism is also ignoring the people of color who have been warning you about it and doing something about it for centuries.

Racism doesn’t always manifest itself as people wearing white hoods and chanting “You will not replace us.” Sometimes, racism manifests itself as people wearing pink pussy hats and chanting “I’m with her.” Or chanting nothing at all.

The post Trinidad: Racism isn’t only for white supremacists appeared first on Emerald Media.

Vin Lananna, president of TrackTown USA and United States Track and Field, is one of track and field’s most influential figures and has been on a crusade to make track and field not only a household sport in Eugene, but across the country. But his shocking success to bring the 2021 IAAF World Track and Field Championships, the crown jewel of the sport outside of the Olympics, to Eugene captures Lananna’s true mission: revitalizing interest in a waning sport.

“This will not just be for Eugene, not just for Tracktown … It’s about what we’re going to do for the sport of track and field,” Lananna said in a press conference after the event was announced.

If anyone can revitalize the popularity of track, it’s Lananna. He helped lead the UO track and cross country programs to six NCAA titles and propelled former Ducks to the Olympics to become household names, such as distance runner Galen Rupp, decathlete Ashton Eaton, and sprinter Jenna Prandini. He spearheaded efforts to bring the 2014 World Junior Championship to Eugene. And he made Hayward Field the defacto home to the NCAA Championship, U.S. Championship and U.S. Olympic Trials for the past 10 years.

Lananna proved he could reinvigorate track in a town synonymous with the sport. But it’s unlikely he can share his success outside of Tracktown because America has stopped caring about track.

Track and field has become a niche sport outside of Eugene and it’s unlikely a one-time event will change that. The deterioration of the sport’s popularity is embodied by the diminished Millrose Games, one of the world’s longest-running and most prestigious indoor competitions. For much of the event’s 100-year history, it regularly drew 18,000 people to watch the world’s best athletes compete at New York’s Madison Square Garden. However, attendance dropped to about 9,000 people by 2011 and lost $500,000 every year. Since then, the games have moved to the Armory, which holds about 5,000 people. Although it still remains a prestigious event, it has lost its glamour.

But most Americans likely don’t even know the Millrose Games exist. I didn’t know about it until I joined the UO Running Club and surrounded myself with track fans. This is likely different from the norm where most Americans only acknowledge track’s existence every four years during the Olympics. Nevertheless, Lananna is persisting to change that.

With an estimated price tag of $68 million to bring the event to Eugene, Lananna is doubling down on his previous attempts to reignite American interest in the sport. Since Lananna joined TrackTown USA in 2012, he brought the world to Oregon with the 2014 World Junior Championships in Eugene and the 2016 World Indoor Championships to Portland. But these events did not help the sport’s domestic popularity.

These events were only followed by New York City withdrawing from the Diamond League, IAAF’s worldwide competition series, in 2016 due to declining audiences. This leaves Eugene as the only U.S. city in the series.

In another effort to generate interest in the sport, TrackTown USA also started its own American competition series, but was met with little interest outside of the track community. Tom Heinonen, who served as the UO women’s track and field and cross country coach for 27 years, said its difficult to create a following for track among people who know nothing about the sport.

“Track is too complicated, too varied, too intricate,” Heinonen said. “And there’s no ball and there’s no score.”

However, Lananna is optimistic. He said the event provides an opportunity to bring Hayward Field into the modern era and attract more international events to not only Eugene, but to the United States. He is also optimistic that the creation of a world-class facility will cement Eugene as the track capital of the country in the long run and become the permanent home to the NCAA Track and Field Championships.

But Lananna’s $68 million bet on track and field may not be successful in generating interest around the country, let alone Eugene.

Outside of the world championship, it is difficult to imagine what event would be able to draw a crowd to fill the new stadium after its expansion for 2021. College meets and the high school state championship rarely exceed half capacity without the additional seating. Expanding the stadium will only make an already half empty stadium more cavernous and jarring. Unless Eugene becomes the permanent home to the U.S. Championship, Olympic Trials and the NCAA championship, it is difficult to see how this investment will pay off.

Although he has tied the games to promoting Oregon and the United States to the world, Lananna’s mission has almost always focused on helping popularize the sport in the United States. However, this makes his beleaguered bid – which has been plagued with funding missteps, construction delays and an FBI investigation – look short sighted.

As a former cross country and track athlete, having the world come to Eugene for track’s premiere event is the opportunity of a lifetime. I have been fortunate enough to watch the World Indoor Championships, U.S. Olympic Trials, NCAA Championships and the Prefontaine Classic since I’ve been at the UO, and they all inspired me as an athlete. Lananna’s attempt to bring track and field back from the abyss of the American consciousness is admirable, but it seems like a fool’s errand with a huge price tag.

The post Trinidad: Is Eugene ready to host the world? appeared first on Emerald Media.

Apparently, my family and I are part of the immigration problem.

Since Donald Trump was elected, he and the Republican Party have embarked on a crusade against immigration: he derided Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists, implemented a travel ban targeting Muslims and betrayed America’s promise to Dreamers. However, it is his current attack on family-based immigration – or what he and immigration opponents call “chain migration” – that feels like a slap in the face to my family.

“Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives,” Trump said in his first State of the Union Address. “This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.”

I never considered my grandmother as a national security threat.

My grandmother grew up as the second-oldest child of eight in a small, poor and rural village in the Philippines. My grandmother’s family was better off than the typical family in her village. Her family was the only one in the town able to afford a car and a TV, with every kid in town cramming into the living room to watch. Some would even peek through the windows if there wasn’t enough room in the house just so they could catch a glimpse of it.

She loved her home, but she dreamed of achieving more.

In the late 1960s, she finished nursing school and left her family behind to immigrate to the United States with my grandfather. Shortly after arriving, they enlisted in the military and deployed to Vietnam. My grandmother served as a nurse, and my grandfather served in the Navy. After the war, they settled down and started the typical nuclear family in a single-family home in the suburbs of Los Angeles.

As my grandmother planted her roots in her new home, she would later provide a launching pad of opportunity for her siblings: living wages, adequate healthcare, education and opportunity – the American Dream.

In the ensuing decades, my grandmother sponsored her siblings one by one to come to America through the family reunification process. As each sibling came and left her home, they became nurses, x-ray technicians and engineers. Their success helped their children succeed. Some followed the footsteps of their parents. Others became a psychiatrist, social workers or small business owners. Some would eventually serve in the Marines and the Army in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two generations later, it’s time for my cousins and I to pursue our own dreams.

My entire family and I owe every opportunity we ever had to my grandmother.

My family’s immigration story is not unique compared to the million of stories around the country, but these million of stories make the United States unique. We don’t just want the American Dream for ourselves, we want it for each other.

Trump’s case to drastically reduce legal family immigration is either intentionally misleading or ill-informed, and it flies in the face of the principles of our country.

The family-based immigration process doesn’t allow for “virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives,” as Trump argues. According to guidelines from the U.S. State Department, only 226,000 people enter the country on family-based application visas per year. This is limited to U.S. residents’ children, spouses, siblings and parents. Not grandma or grandpa, nor aunts or uncles, nor cousins or in-laws. This quota has created a backlog of applicants who must wait years or even decades for their green cards.

Trump’s economic and security concerns over chain migration are also out of touch from reality.

Immigrants contribute to the economy rather than drain it. According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, immigration contributes to labor growth, promotes entrepreneurship and leads to innovation and technological advancements that keeps America competitive.

In terms of national security, research from the Cato Institute found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and the Government Accountability Office found that homegrown right-wing extremists, not foreign-born immigrants, have committed more acts of domestic terrorism since 2001.

We cannot allow politicians to play loose with facts to pit Americans against each other. My family’s story is the American Dream. When we deny the American Dream to other Americans, especially on false pretenses, we lose what makes us American – and chain migration is the American Dream.

The post Trinidad: Chain migration is the American Dream appeared first on Emerald Media.

It is difficult to remember life before Uber. During my summer in D.C., it was a godsend. It saved me from constant subway delays and closures, public transit deserts, monsoon rains and late-night excursions. It became something I could not imagine living without. Then I returned to Eugene.

Since 2015, the ride-sharing service has been ousted from Eugene for failing to meet local taxi regulations, putting commuters at the mercy of public transit and a handful of taxi companies. But that could soon change. The Eugene City Council opened an opportunity for the company’s return by scheduling a work session this month to discuss changes to the city code to adapt Eugene to the new sharing economy. There has been speculation since 2016 about bringing it back, but now is the time for the city council to stop dragging its feet.

It is time to bring Uber back.

In a mid-sized college town with limited public transportation options, Uber provides an opportunity for students and community members to take full advantage of what Eugene has to offer and create new job opportunities.

Ride-sharing companies can be more convenient, safer and potentially lifesaving for a college town populated with students. The college culture of binge drinking puts people at risk for drinking and driving or not being able to return home safely. Although the University of Oregon provides two free ride programs, Safe Ride and the Designated Driver Shuttle, these programs and their taxi counterparts are plagued with long wait times, and public transportation is also limited as the bus system stops operating at midnight. But scheduling a ride can be difficult if someone has already had one too many drinks. On-demand rides from Uber can prevent this while alleviating overburdened services that already exist.

Reintroducing Uber to Eugene could also provide new job opportunities for students and other community members who have struggled to find employment. Students often accommodate their class schedules to fit their job schedule, sacrificing their education for a paycheck. Uber offers a self-employment alternative, which expands total employment in cities and increases hourly wages for self-employed drivers.

However, there has been some pushback from taxi companies. Threatened from the innovation that ride-sharing apps brought to an industry that has not changed for decades, taxi companies around the nation have engaged in rent seeking to protect themselves and their profits from increased competition. But some companies followed Uber’s steps by introducing their own ride-sharing apps. Local companies should be encouraged to do the same and adapt to the new sharing economy rather than be shielded from its effects.

Although Uber does bring numerous benefits to the cities it operates in, it does have some problems.

The company has tolerated a culture of sexual harassment, underpaid and mistreated its drivers and engaged in questionable business practices to damage its competitors.

Despite these problems, changing the city code to allow similar companies with better business practices to operate in Eugene, such as Lyft, will ultimately benefit the community. It is time for the city council to read the writing on the wall — the sharing economy is here, and it is time for Eugene to join it.

The post Trinidad: Bring Uber back to Eugene appeared first on Emerald Media.